Case Digest (G.R. No. 117667)
Facts:
Inland Trailways, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Roberto L. Makalintal, Reynaldo T. Nepomuceno and Solar Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 117667, March 18, 1996, the Supreme Court, Hermosisima, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On February 10, 1994, respondent Solar Resources, Inc. filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Inland Trailways, Inc. in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Parañaque (docketed Civil Case No. 8778) for failure to pay rent. On May 26, 1994, MTC, Branch 77, rendered judgment ejecting Inland Trailways and ordering payment of rental arrearages.
Petitioner received a copy of the MTC decision and filed a Notice of Appeal on June 7, 1994. Thereafter, Solar filed a Motion for Immediate Execution under Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court; the motion carried a date (annexed as “C”) of June 23, 1994. Petitioner contested the filing date, asserting that Solar filed the motion on June 24, 1994 — after the 15-day period to perfect an appeal — and thus that the MTC had already lost jurisdiction when it acted.
Because petitioner did not post a supersedeas bond, the MTC issued a Writ of Execution on June 30, 1994; the sheriff levied on petitioner’s property on July 1, 1994. On July 6, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque, Branch 259 (Civil Case No. 94‑0089), seeking to annul the writ as issued without jurisdiction; the RTC issued a temporary restraining order but ultimately dismissed the petition.
Petitioner elevated the RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 34992); on October 27, 1994 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding the Motion for Execution had been filed on June 22, 1994 and that MTC thus retained jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court on November 10, 1994; the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the writ while the petition was p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court, in a Rule 45 petition for review, re-examine and reverse a pure question of fact decided by the Court of Appeals?
- Was the Motion for Immediate Execution filed within the period that preserved the MTC’s jurisdiction (i.e., was it filed on June 22, 1994 or June 24, 1994)?
- Was the issuance of the Writ of Execution by the MTC proper given petitioner’s failure to file a supersed...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)